Non-profit

Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL)

Website:

www.techandciviclife.org

Location:

CHICAGO, IL

Tax ID:

47-2158694

Tax-Exempt Status:

501(c)(3)

Budget (2020):

Revenue: $3,404,409
Expenses: $1,376,946
Assets: $3,172,982

Formation:

2012

Type:

Center-Left Election Policy Advocacy Group

Founders:

Tiana Epps-Johnson

Donny Bridges

Whitney May

Latest Tax Filing:

2020 Form 990 (02/20–01/2021)

2019 Form 990 (02/2019–01/2020)

The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) is a Chicago, Illinois-based center-left election reform advocacy group formed in 2012. The organization pushes for left-of-center voting policies and election administration. It has a wide reach into local elections offices across the nation and is funded by many left-of-center funding organizations such as the Skoll Foundation, the Democracy Fund, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. [1] [2] [3]

Tiana Epps-Johnson, Donny Bridges, and Whitney May, the founders of the Center for Tech and Civic Life, were co-workers at the New Organizing Institute (NOI) for several years before the organization dissolved in 2015. [4] NOI, described by a Washington Post reporter as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry,” was a major training center for left-of-center digital activists over the decade of its existence. [5] Additionally, a few members of CTCL’s board of directors have strong ties to Democratic political operations, notably Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor to the elections program at Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund, and Cristina Sinclaire, who was previously employed by NOI as well as by the progressive data service Catalist. [6]

In the months leading up to the November 2020 election, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan reportedly donated a total of $350 million to CTCL through the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), although the actual figure reported in SVCF’s IRS disclosures was roughly $328 million. The couple also donated $69.5 million to a related organization, the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), which channeled the funds to secretaries of state as COVID-19 “relief grants.” Both donations were paid out to CTCL and CEIR from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s donor-advised fund (DAF) account at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. [7]

CTCL then channeled the funds, commonly called “Zuck bucks,” in the form of grants to thousands of county and city elections officials throughout the United States to help them hire more staff, buy mail-in ballot processing machinery, and other measures they deemed necessary to properly handle the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic. [8] [9]

CTCL election funding was quickly controversial once it became public, drawing major media coverage and public criticism. The New York Times reported: [10]

The prospect of election administrators tapping large pools of private money has raised new legal and political questions. That is partly because it is unusual for elections to be subsidized by nongovernment funding at this level, but also because most of the cash is coming from nonprofit groups that have liberal ties. . .

Similarly, the Associated Press reported, “The cash comes with a new set of questions about donor transparency, motivations and the influence of groups and figures that are not democratically accountable.” [11] The Associated Press also reported that conservatives were concerned because of “the Democratic origins of CTCL and that its donations have predominantly been in areas where Democrats depend on votes.” [12]

In January 2022, New York Times contributor Christopher Caldwell criticized CTCL’s “relief grants” as a private intrusion into public elections offices, arguing that voters “might consider the intervention of info-tech billionaires in the 2020 election to be a larger potential threat to our democracy” than the January 6, 2021, protest in Washington, D.C. He added: [13]

[Zuckerberg’s] gift roughly equaled the amount of federal funding designated for that purpose in the 2020 CARES Act. It is hard to imagine that anyone worried about the role of private wealth in prisons or military logistics or public schools would welcome such a role in elections.

For its part, CTCL refused to cooperate even with friendly, left-leaning media outlets. For example, when American Public Media and National Public Radio (NPR) began inquiring after CTCL’s grants in December 2020, the group “declined repeated interview requests from APM Reports to discuss the funding and how it was used.” [14] The New York Times was also stonewalled by CTCL, as was the Associated Press and the New Yorker, even though CTCL leadership knew it would eventually have to disclose its funding about a year later in its nonprofit filings with the IRS. [15] [16] [17]

Background

The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) was founded in 2012 by Tiana Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges. [18] The three co-founders have a long history in election policy, with Whitney May also being a former election official. The goal of the organization at its founding was to use data to streamline election administration and increase turnout in American elections. The organization has several programs and initiatives focused on election data and outreach to local election officials. [19]

However, the group’s tax-exempt status was officially recognized on March 24, 2015, according to a “Final Letter” from the IRS. Though the letter was dated March 24, 2015, the letter also states that the effective date of exemption was October 23, 2014. [20] Interestingly, the address listed was the same address as the New Organizing Institute’s, the group where all three CTCL founders previously worked. [21] This means that the Center for Tech and Civic Life was created and operational within the New Organizing Institute’s offices before the New Organizing Institute was dissolved amid scandal in 2015.

New Organizing Institute (NOI)

Also see New Organizing Institute (NOI)

When it was still in operation, Epps-Johnson, May, and Bridges all worked together at the New Organizing Institute (NOI), a now-defunct left-progressive group which trained digital organizers and campaigners for the Democratic Party and left-of-center political causes. Epps-Johnson began working for NOI in 2010 as a deputy data manager of the organization’s Voting Information Project. She was then promoted to manage the project and eventually became NOI’s election administration director. [22] May joined NOI in 2012 to work as its liaison to state election officials for the Voting Information Project and later acted as the liaison to election officials for the organization’s election administration department. [23] Bridges started in 2011 and directed a variety of research projects on candidates, elections, and ballot questions. [24]

The New Organizing Institute was originally founded in 2004 (launched in 2005) by Zack Exley, a radical activist with MoveOn.org (later an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sander’s 2016 presidential campaign and an Open Society Foundations fellow), and Judith Freeman, a political strategist for the AFL-CIO and later adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. [25] [26]

In July 2014, a reporter for the Washington Post published a piece covering the New Organizing Institute, calling it “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry” and “the Left’s think tank for campaign know-how.” [27]

The piece detailed how NOI trained activists, campaign staffers, and nonprofit employees in digital technology such as HTML coding, voter outreach via email lists and social media adverts, donor outreach and fundraising methods, tips for spreading online video content, and proper eye-catching online messaging. The article explained that the impetus behind the Institute’s formation was the desire of Democratic Party operatives for their field workers to be trained in the latest digital techniques perfected by the Obama presidential campaign during the 2012 election. By spreading the latest skills in coding, social media, and internet advertising to as many left-of-center activists as possible, NOI could diffuse digital learning through the progressive movement as those activists went on to different places in their careers, giving a lasting advantage to Democrats. [28]

NOI often collaborated with the Funders Committee for Civic Participation (FCCP) and was part of the Democracy Alliance’s (DA) portfolio of groups recommended for donations from DA members. The Democracy Alliance is a collective of left-of-center unions, policy groups, and major donors that coordinates political spending to key infrastructure groups ahead of elections. [29]

NOI offered fiscal sponsorship services to other left-of-center groups seeking sponsorship until obtaining standalone tax-exempt status from the IRS. NOI charged fees for this service: “5% of every donation” to the sponsee, “3% of crowdfunding” funds raised by the sponsee, and “50% of office space” expenses. Funders could donate directly to NOI in support of sponsored groups. [30]

In February 2015, eight senior staff members (including Epps-Johnson, May, and Bridges) and an unknown number of the “20 or so” lower level staffers of the New Organizing Institute quit en masse. The day prior, senior staff members had presented an ultimatum to the New Organizing Institute board demanding the resignation of executive director Ethan Roeder due to alleged financial mismanagement which had left the organization on the verge of insolvency. The board, led by Judith Freeman, refused to remove Roeder. [31]

After the walkout, Freeman vowed to continue the New Organizing Institute,[32] but the Institute and the Education Fund would dissolve eight months later. In an October press release, Freeman announced that NOI’s core training program would be absorbed by Wellstone Action (now RePower). [33]

After NOI shuttered, Epps-Johnson, May, and Bridges all turned their focus on CTCL, bringing the digital activist skills they had learned at NOI to their fledgling nonprofit.

Activity

The Center for Technology and Civic Life has two main programming areas: “civic data” (a term it uses for election and candidate information), and training for election officials. CTCL has assembled resources to collect data from nearly every local election office; covering candidates on the ballot for each race, information describing those offices, and contact information for elected officials. The organization boasts that more than 250 million voters have accessed its data and that CTCL acts as a major supplier of ballot data for tech giants Facebook and Google. Additionally, Rock the Vote, the Women Donors Network, and the Voting Information Project have all used data provided by CTCL. [34]

The Center for Tech and Civic Life also hosts an annual conference for election officials and left-of-center election policy activists. Left-leaning advocacy organizations represented at the CTCL’s 2019 conference included the Democracy Fund, “e.thePeople” (part of the League of Women Voters), Metric Geometry & Gerrymandering Group, We Vote, MapLight, Democracy Works, and the National Institute on Money in Politics. [35]

The center has a network of hundreds of election offices across the nation and works to train election officials. CTCL provides courses to election offices and travels to offices (for a fee of $5,000) to help local officials collect data, build websites, and develop messages to motivate voters. The center also operates ElectionTools.org, which provides free templates and forms for use by election officials. [36]

Webinars for 2020 Election Officials

In 2018, CTCL began providing cybersecurity training for election officials. CTCL claims it provided information about potential threats to the election process and ways to prevent them from happening. As of March 2020, 1,000 election officials completed the training, including 400 in Virginia. Ahead of the 2020 elections, CTCL  worked in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Education to deliver cybersecurity trainings to more than 750 election workers in the state. [37] [38]

On January 6, 2020, CTCL collaborated with the Center for Civic Design and the National Vote at Home Institute on three webinars about voting by mail. The webinars were entitled “Implementing envelope best practices,” “Preparing helpful supplementary materials,” and “Integrating low-cost tracking and reporting tools.” The webinars aimed to educate election officials  on helping  constituents vote by mail. The webinars covered topics such as mail ballots and envelopes, adapting national templates for local needs, the best ways to prioritize information to give to voters, and tools for tracking ballots. [39]

On May 28, 2020, CTCL posted a webinar entitled “Ensuring access, equity, and inclusion,” which concerned the types of demographic groups CTCL wished to target with voter participation outreach campaigns. The presentation identifies people with “language barriers,” “displaced voters,” and “hard-to-reach voters” as those in need of CTCL’s assistance in making voting more accessible. [40]

On June 16, 2020, CTCL released a webinar entitled “Organizing Ballot Dropoff Locations,” a tutorial on how election officials should manage the ballot dropoff process. It encouraged election offices to show eligible voters how they can engage in this method of voting, especially voters in communities with lower vote-by-mail registrations. [41]

On July 30, 2020, CTCL posted a webinar entitled “Combatting Election Misinformation” as a resource to help election officials be “reliable source[s] of information” to combat misinformation. It justified the need for election officials to combat misinformation citing Russian interference in the 2016 election, and claimed Donald Trump himself has been a source of disinformation. The webinar encourages the reporting of social media posts when they are suspicious of being misinformation and provides instructions on how to do so. It also encourages election officials to establish relationships with factcheckers and journalists to make spreading factual information easier. [42]

2020 Elections COVID-19 Grants

Program and Zuckerberg Funding

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Center for Tech and Civic Life began to play an active part in the effort led by the Democracy Fund to normalize mail-in ballots in the 2020 general election. CTCL has held remote trainings and provides resources on voting by mail for election officials. [43]

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated a total of $350 million to CTCL in the months leading up to the 2020 election, funds which were passed along as grants to numerous county and city elections officials across the U.S. to help them hire more staff, purchase ballot dropboxes, buy mail-in ballot processing machinery, and other measures they deemed necessary to properly handle the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic. [44] [45]

By November 2020, CTCL had given grants to over 2,500 election offices throughout the United States. A map, as well as a list, of all the jurisdictions which received CTCL funding is available on its website. [46] CTCL asked its recipients how they would spend their grants; almost 2,000 indicated they would be using the funds to upgrade their mail-in ballot processing capabilities, and an estimated 750 said they would be funding voter education efforts. [47]

CTCL required grant recipients return a “COVID-19 Response Grant Report” form after expending funds (example form archived here). Categories listed on how funds were spent include: [48]

  • Ballot drop boxes
  • Drive-through voting
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff, poll workers, or voters
  • Poll worker recruitment funds, hazard pay, and/or training expenses
  • Polling place rental and cleaning expenses
  • Temporary staffing support
  • Election department real estate costs, or costs associated with satellite election department office
  • Vote-by-mail/Absentee voting equipment or supplies
  • Election administration equipment
  • Voting materials in languages other than English
  • Non-partisan voter education

Targeting Swing States

In August 2020, CTCL announced that it had donated $6.3 million to five cities in Wisconsin, a swing state in the upcoming  election. The organization explained that the funds are meant to ensure Wisconsin has a “safe, inclusive, and secure election.” [49] CTCL recommended the recipient cities to “Encourage and Increase Absentee Voting,” “Dramatically Expand Strategic Voter Education & Outreach Efforts, Particularly to Historically Disenfranchised Residents,” “Launch Poll Worker Recruitment, Training and Safety Efforts,” and “Ensure Safe and Efficient Election Day Administration.” [50]

In the same press release, the Center for Tech and Civic Life announced it was creating a “COVID-19 Response Rural Grants Program” to provide similar safety measures across the country, which include drive-thru voting options, funds for voting facilities to hire additional staff, and expansions to the vote by mail system. [51] CTCL noted that it would prioritize certain recipients, especially those that fell under two categories: one being jurisdictions that were required to provide language assistance and have a higher percentage of historically disenfranchised residents, and the other being jurisdictions in states that had recently changed absentee voting laws or rules due to COVID-19. [52]

The mayors of the major Wisconsin cities which received these funds had sent a letter to CTCL in June requesting, in light of the difficulties election offices had faced during the April 2020 primary and local elections coping with the COVID-19 pandemic, to “work collaboratively” with CTCL in the general election. They outlined the problems they had in the April, highlighted the ways in which they could improve the system (including the need to “Encourage and Increase Absentee Voting”), and calculated the budgetary items they needed, coming to the $6.3 million figure. [53]

In August 2020, CTCL gave $10 million to the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which went a long way, as Philadelphia’s elections office has an annual budget of about $12.3 million. [54] [55] CTCL designated the funds for upgrading mail-in ballot processing equipment, setting up 15 election offices for “in-person early voting using mail ballots,” opening 800 polling places in the city, installing at least 15 dropboxes for mail ballots in the city, and giving poll staffers bonuses for working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pennsylvania, like Wisconsin, was a swing state with many potential Democratic voters, and CTCL gave this grant a few months before the 2020 presidential election.

CTCL gave an additional $2.2 million to Delaware County, Pennsylvania. In the summer of 2020, CTCL gave out a total of $15 million in grants. This was significantly more than what CTCL’s average annual budget was in previous years, which was around $1 million. [56] There is no public indication of where that money came from, as it was before Mark Zuckerberg donated to the cause.

After the November 3rd election, the results of Georgia’s senate race necessitated a runoff election in January 2021. CTCL pledged philanthropic support to Georgia’s election offices to help them process the votes, but laid out a number of restrictions for what the money can be spent on: more personnel, improved voting site features to deal with COVID such as ballot drop boxes and drive-thrus, and voter outreach in the form of “non-partisan voter education” and “voting materials in languages other than English.” [57] In its proposal, CTCL said that all Georgia counties were eligible to apply for a grant, the minimum amount being $5,000. [58]

Emails made public in March 2021 showed Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, the Wisconsin leader of the National Vote at Home Institute, offering to help Green Bay election officials “cure” absentee ballots that were missing witness signatures. The National Vote at Home Institute has close ties to CTCL, as CTCL’s founder and executive director is in the “Circle of Advisors” for the National Vote at Home Institute. Spitzer-Rubenstein has a history of working for Democratic campaigns and politicians, having previously interned for Democratic former New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. [59]

Grants By State

CTCL initially published a public spreadsheet indicating preliminary grants awarded as part of its COVID-19 “relief funds” program, but not indicating the amounts paid [60]

The following list uses CTCL’s 2020 IRS Form 990 disclosure to report the actual number of grants paid by state, including the sums, while preserving the preliminary number reported by CTCL. [61] [62]

StatePreliminaryPreliminary TotalFinalFinal Total
Alabama7Unreported9 $2,451,843
Alaska2Unreported2 $50,000
Arizona9Unreported8 $5,169,724
Arkansas25Unreported23 $1,306,012
California30Unreported30 $21,800,648
Colorado5Unreported5 $748,724
Connecticut62Unreported42 $1,871,932
District of Columbia1Unreported1 $617,613
Florida12Unreported11 $16,040,950
Georgia43Unreported43 $45,013,990
Hawaii3Unreported3 $490,985
Idaho21Unreported12 $712,289
Illinois60Unreported58 $5,646,844
Indiana6Unreported5 $2,043,365
Iowa67Unreported48 $4,436,775
Kansas25Unreported14 $2,230,628
Kentucky47Unreported40 $7,114,078
Louisiana0N/A2 $1,128,000
Maine208Unreported31 $2,573,157
Maryland21Unreported21 $6,195,787
Massachusetts266Unreported117 $2,923,321
Michigan474Unreported466 $16,862,654
Minnesota28Unreported14 $7,169,406
Mississippi34Unreported29 $3,703,777
Missouri45Unreported27 $6,802,914
Montana30Unreported10 $2,096,878
Nebraska1Unreported1 $404,585
Nevada2Unreported2 $2,671,515
New Hampshire64Unreported13 $213,502
New Jersey29Unreported21 $21,340,276
New Mexico13Unreported12 $3,263,077
New York38Unreported34 $25,811,323
North Carolina36Unreported28 $7,188,264
North Dakota43Unreported13 $261,052
Ohio46Unreported42 $7,518,652
Oklahoma42Unreported32 $2,490,055
Oregon25Unreported19 $1,572,146
Pennsylvania24Unreported23 $25,011,085
Rhode Island39Unreported24 $581,865
South Carolina43Unreported39 $5,373,219
South Dakota36Unreported12 $255,231
Tennessee1Unreported1 $382,962
Texas116Unreported83 $38,621,136
Utah2Unreported2 $295,611
Vermont112Unreported8 $77,269
Virginia39Unreported36 $3,733,823
Washington18Unreported16 $2,849,931
West Virginia1Unreported0N/A
Wisconsin217Unreported31 $10,108,644
Total: 2,518 1,563 $327,227,517

Criticism and Controversies

Unlawful Private Funding of Elections Lawsuit (2020)

Also see Center for Secure and Modern Elections (Nonprofit) and New Venture Fund (Nonprofit)

On October 2, 2021, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry sued the New Venture Fund (the parent organization of the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, or CSME), CTCL, and the consulting firm Full Circle Strategies (which represented both organizations locally) “to prevent the injection of unregulated private money into the Louisiana election system and to protect the integrity of elections in the State by ensuring against the corrosive influence of outside money on Louisiana election officials.” According to the lawsuit, “private contributions to local election officials are unlawful and contrary to the methods for election funding established by law in the State of Louisiana”; the Attorney General sought to have CTCL’s funding declared illegal and be permanently enjoined. [63]

The lawsuit alleged that CTCL and New Venture Fund (under the name “Center for Secure and Modern Elections”) had unlawfully “targeted 13 parishes” for elections grants, some of which exceeded $500,000, requiring local registrar’s offices to provide “detailed information about [their] operations, conduct, and expenses” in turn. These transactions were allegedly facilitated by Dawn Maisel Cole, the principal for Full Circle Strategies, who “directly solicited registrars and clerks of court to accept contributions from CTCL and New Venture for the operation of their respective offices.” Besides breaking state law, the Attorney General’s office argued that private funding of elections is barred by the Louisiana state legislature and U.S. Congress for “obvious” reasons: [64]

  1. The influence that would inevitably accompany private financial contributions to local elections officials;
  2. Outside donations to local election officials sow distrust in the administration of the election system;
  3. Private contributions would inevitably spawn competition for party and corporate control over local election funding and would lead to bidding for election favor by party and private interests;
  4. Private contributors are likely to be political parties or large corporations that have partisan and/or economic objectives to foster with their contributions to election officials;
  5. Private interests, as in this instance, fund particular parishes and particular aspects of the election that they believe advance their election goals and objectives;
  6. Should registrars and clerks become reliant upon private funding of their governmental activities, they may well be compelled to respond to the objectives of those providing the funding in order to ensure that the funding continues;
  7. Such private funding, washed through non-profit organizations, invites the potential for contributions from foreign governments to the Louisiana system and its election officials;
  8. Private contributions open the door to election suits and contests based upon perceived or actual influence on the part of local election officials in the conduct of an election.

Attorneys for defendants CTCL, New Venture Fund, and Dawn Maisel Cole argued that they were allowed to provide grants to parishes because no law expressly prohibited private funding for elections: [65]

Under Louisiana law, registrar of voters and clerks of courts are ‘political subdivisions’ that are allowed to accept private donations for public purposes unless there is restriction provided by law that prohibits them from doing so.

A state judge ruled against the state on October 26, 2020, on the grounds that “there is no prohibition for the granting of private funds to registrars of voters and clerks of court to assist in the election process.” [66] Consequently, he ruled that the Attorney General’s office had “no cause of action” for the lawsuit and it was dismissed with prejudice. [67]

Louisiana Lawsuit Reinstated (2022)

A judge on Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision dismissing Attorney General Jeff Landry’s lawsuit against CTCL and New Venture Fund in April 2022. [68]

The appellate court found that CTCL and New Venture Fund “targeted 13 parishes” with offers for COVID-19 “relief grants” “through a lobbyist by the name of Dawn Maisel Cole, owner and operator of Full Circle Strategies, LLC, as their Louisiana representative and agent to target registrars of voters, clerks of court and local election officials.” Cole allegedly “directly solicited registrars and clerks of court to accept contributions from CTCL and New Venture Fund.” According to the court, CTCL and New Venture Fund demanded parishes supply them with the following information: [69]

  • Number of active registered voters in the election office jurisdiction as of September 1, 2020
  • Number of full-time staff (or equivalent) on the election team as of September 1, 2020
  • Election office 2020 budget as of September 1, 2020
  • Election office W-9
  • Local government body who needs to approve the grant funding (if any)
  • What government official or government agency the grant agreement should be addressed to.

The court concluded that, “the State . . . has stated a cause of action to protect an interest of the state by preventing the funding of elections with private money,” and reversed and remanded the earlier decision. The court added: “Whether the defendants here may be well-intentioned, private money in any amount, but particularly the amount of money offered by the defendants to select clerks and/or registrars, has an inherently insidious and corrupting effect.” [70]

Partisan Outcomes of COVID-19 Grants

The Capital Research Center, which publishes InfluenceWatch, has published multiple extensive reports analyzing CTCL’s COVID-19 elections grants in Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

These reports found that, while CTCL did not apparently violate any election laws in funding county elections offices, many of its grants targeted key Democratic-leaning counties and cities in battleground states essential to Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. While CTCL sent grants to many counties that Republican incumbent Donald Trump won in these states, the largest grants went to Biden counties such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. [71]

Opportunist Racketeering

Toni Johnson, the Election Commission Chair of Hinds County, Mississippi, accused supervisor David Archie of racketeering, alleging that he doctored internal documents and lied on CTCL’s grant application forms to receive $200,000 for self-use. CTCL awarded Hinds County with $1.5 million for safe election purposes, but Johnson claimed Archie redirected those funds away from voter education and safety measures to ridiculous things like voter awareness tennis matches and COVID-19-proof floor mats. “COVID-19 does not spread on your feet,” Johnson quipped. [72]

But in July 2021, Johnson resigned as chair of the Hinds County Election Commission after Archie began his own investigation into her alleged misuse of funds provided by the CTCL. [73] A review of expenses incurred under Johnson’s leadership showed that tens of thousands of dollars were used to purchase food, office supplies, various home appliances, and cleaning and gardening services. [74] Some of the items purchased, including two 70-inch Samsung flat-screen televisions and a refrigerator, were of different models from the ones listed in Johnson’s requisition form. [75] Archie also noted that the commission paid a company named New Beginning to conduct two training luncheons, each costing $4,216, although no commission member could remember ever attending them. [76] Johnson said that Archie’s inquiry was “politically motivated” and that she intended to sue his assistant, Malcom Johnson (no relation), for making false claims about her on his talk show. [77]

Potentially Illegal Control Over Elections in Wisconsin

In March 2021, an investigation by the Wisconsin Spotlight, a project of the right-leaning Empower Wisconsin Foundation, revealed that CTCL leveraged conditions attached to its grantmaking to exert potentially illegal influence on the administration of elections in Wisconsin’s five largest cities. Emails obtained by the Wisconsin Spotlight, showed that CTCL connected multiple city election administrators to Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, the Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, and that Spitzer-Rubenstein rapidly became the “de facto elections chief,” particularly in the city of Green Bay.[78]

In the emails, Spitzer-Rubenstein, who has a history of working for Democratic campaigns, asked former Green Bay city clerk Kris Teske if he could help to correct or “cure” absentee ballots with missing signatures or addresses. When Teske denied the request on the grounds of its questionable legality, Spitzer-Rubenstein followed up with Green Bay’s Democratic mayor who pressured Teske to meet with Spitzer-Rubenstein and allow him to help “cure” absentee ballots. Spitzer-Rubenstein tried to assuage Teske’s concerns by assuring her that he had helped write the ballot curing rules for the city of Milwaukee as well. [79]

Teske complained several times to her superiors that the “grant advisors” did not know Wisconsin’s election laws, that their involvement was likely illegal, and that her concerns were not being taken seriously. Following the complaints, Teske announced a leave of absence, and submitted her resignation shortly thereafter.[80]

In Teske’s absence, Spitzer-Rubenstein was given control over Green Bay’s election process. Emails show that Spitzer-Reubenstein helped to decide the specifics of ballot handling and transportation rules and had access to the KI Convention Center, where ballots were counted, two days before the election. Emails from the former Brown County Clerk, Sandy Juno, show that Spitzer-Rubenstein was even given four of the five keys to the room where ballots were stored “several days before the election.” As the Wisconsin Spotlight describes it “The city of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democratic Party operative from New York.” [81]

Juno, too, raised concerns about Spitzer-Rubenstein’s unfettered access to the Green Bay election process. Juno later told the Wisconsin Elections Commission that she believed the central count location at the KI Convention Center “was tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.” Juno also claimed that, in the months before the election, Green Bay had totally broken off communications with the Brown County Clerk’s Office, and “went rogue.” Immediately following the election, Juno retired from her position in January 2021.[82]

Other emails, also obtained by the Wisconsin Spotlight, show that Spitzer-Rubenstein contacted the city of Wuawatosa’s interim county clerk, Cindi Dluaney, to connect her with Natalia Espina, a Wisconsin leader for Power the Polls, a left-leaning poll worker recruitment group. Espina also serves as the operations director at Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin based left-of-center immigration advocacy group.[83]

Democratic-Leaning Counties Given a Head Start

In June 2021, reports showed that predominantly Democratic counties in Pennsylvania were given a head start in applying for CTCL election grants by the Pennsylvania Department of State. [84] Emails obtained through Right-to-Know requests revealed that officials in the Democratic strongholds of Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery Counties were already discussing the existence of CTCL funding in August 2020 even though most other counties were not sent an invitation to apply for a grant until September 1, 2020.

The emails showed that Delaware County officials had sent completed applications for CTCL grant money to the Pennsylvania Department of State as early as August 6, and the Philadelphia Commissioners office applied for a $10 million grant on August 7 and received the funding on August 21. [85]

Reports also showed that emails first introducing Delaware County officials to the idea of CTCL grants in July 2020 were also shared with partisan Democratic operatives. [86] In July 2020, Delaware County Councilwoman, Christine Reuther, received an email from Gwen Camp, a former staffer for the Obama Administration, that discussed the possibility of CTCL funding. Kevin Mack, an employee of the left-leaning political consulting firm Deliver Strategies and chief strategist of Need to Impeach, a Democrat aligned super PAC that opposed President Donald Trump was also copied in the email. Mack’s employee biography claims that he was the “Lead Strategist for The Voter Project in Pennsylvania which was instrumental in signing up over 3.2 million people to vote by mail and leading the soft-side effort to win the swing state in 2020.” [87]

Funds Allegedly Used for Embezzlement (2022)

In February 2022, three individuals in Hinds County, Mississippi, were arrested for allegedly embezzling $250,000 in public funds received as part of the county’s $1.7 million CTCL grant. [88] Prosecutors alleged that Hinds County election commissioner Toni Johnson used the CTCL funds “to buy two 85-inch televisions and personal protective equipment” and hired Cedric Cornelius, owner of a local “motion picture and video production” company, to perform fraudulent “cleaning services, COVID-19 testing and voting machine audits for the county,” none of which were actually performed. A third individual, Sudie Jones-Teague, was charged with fraud, bribery, and conspiracy for being fraudulently paid as a county vendor. [89]

Bribery Allegations in Wisconsin (2022)

A report by Wisconsin special counsel Michael Gableman released in March 2022 alleged violations of state law “prohibiting election bribery” committed by CTCL in the 2020 election.[90]

CTCL distributed $10.1 million in COVID-19 “relief grants” to Wisconsin cities and a handful of counties, roughly 84 percent of which went to just 5 cities: Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha. These 5 cities were all won by Democrat Joe Biden.[91]

The special counsel report, which calls these cities “The Zuckerberg 5,” notes that each municipality “entered into an agreement with [the] Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL)” to “[take] CTCL’s money to facilitate in-person and absentee voting within their respective city,” constituting election bribery “because the participating cities and public officials received private money to facilitate in-person or absentee voting within such a city.” It continues: [92]

Wis. Stat. § 12.11, in relevant part, prohibits a city from receiving money to facilitate electors going to the polls or to facilitate electors to voting by absentee ballot:

Election bribery

(1) In this section, “anything of value” includes any amount of money, or any object which has utility independent of any political message it contains and the value of which exceeds $1…

(1m) Any person who does any of the following violates this chapter:

1. Offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or endeavors to procure, anything of value, or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to:

1. Go to … the polls.

2. Vote…. [emphasis added in report]

Those funds were used to “specifically target ‘[h]istorically [d]isenfranchised [r]esidents’ within the Zuckerberg 5,” defined by CTCL as:[93]

All five municipalities expressed strong and clear needs for resources to conduct voter outreach and education to their communities, with a particular emphasis on reaching voters of color, low-income voters without reliable access to internet, voters with disabilities, and voters whose primary language is not English [emphasis added in report].

The special counsel report further cites “secretive” pre-election communications and meetings between the elections staff of the 5 cities, many of whom it claims were biased against President Donald Trump “and those that voted for him,” and CTCL leadership (in particular Whitney May) “to develop a ‘comprehensive plan’ for election administration” by June 15, 2020, in exchange for an initial $100,000 grant to the cities, later expanded to significantly larger grants. The report alleged that “the mayors and their staff” of these cities “were invited to the meeting[s]” in May, June, and August 2020. It further alleged that “neither the Common Council [city council] members nor the public were informed that the meetings were even set to occur.”[94]

Finally, the report recommends the Wisconsin legislature prohibit “outside grants . . . especially where those grants have any conditions on them.”[95] In May 2021, the state legislature passed a bill regulating, but not prohibiting, private funding of elections; the bill was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers (D) on June 30, 2021. [96]

The Center for Tech and Civic Life responded to the special counsel report by arguing that nothing in Wisconsin state law “can be fairly construed as prohibiting the defendant Cities from accepting funds from CTCL.” The group added: “This so-called report from Michael Gableman rehashes many of the arguments made in more than a dozen frivolous lawsuits filed to smear the CTCL COVID-19 Response Grants program.”[97]

U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence (2022)

For more information, see the Alliance for Election Excellence profile

CTCL Grant Analysis by State (2020)

The following information comes from various reports on CTCL spending made by the Capital Research Center (CRC), which publishes InfluenceWatch. CRC maintains an updated analysis article here: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States

For a list of state bans or restrictions on private funding of elections, see: States Banning or Restricting ‘Zuck Bucks’

The following original reports were produced in 2021 using the best-available information, but are now out-of-date: Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Note: Figures below have been updated to reflect 2022 analysis. Some original figures have been included below for transparency.

Virginia

Virginia received $3.7 million in CTCL grants to 36 of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent cities (a Virginia jurisdiction equivalent to a county). [98]

CRC’s original estimate was $3,968,221 in CTCL grants flowing to 39 counties and cities, including one grant of an unknown amount to Hanover County (see endnotes for FOIA documents). [99] [100]

The average Trump county received $0.66 per capita from CTCL. The average Biden county received $1.11 from CTCL. [101]

The 36 counties and cities that CTCL funded delivered 699,005 votes to Donald Trump and 1,172,233 votes to Joe Biden, a difference of more than 473,000 votes; Biden won Virginia by 451,000 votes. [102] [103]

CTCL funded 14 of the 46 counties and cities Biden won in 2020, yet these 14 jurisdictions received 90 percent ($3.4 million) of all funds CTCL directed towards Virginia. They also accounted for 1,071,615 votes for Biden, or 44 percent of his statewide total. Fairfax County, the most populous county in the state, received $1.24 million, or nearly 3.5 times as much money as every county won by Trump combined. [104] [105]

Of the 87 counties Trump won statewide, CTCL funded 22 totaling $358,910, just 9.6 percent of all CTCL grants in Virginia. These delivered 210,893 votes to Trump, or 10.7 percent of his statewide total. Two of these jurisdictions, James City County and Lynchburg, narrowly flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020. [106] [107]

Turnout for Biden in CTCL-funded counties increased by 206,000 votes (17 percent) over Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance. For Trump, turnout in these same counties increased by just 68,319 votes (12 percent) over his 2016 performance there.

Per capita, 11 of the 12 largest CTCL grants in Virginia (including the candidate who won them and the grant amounts) went to: [108]

  1. Petersburg (Biden): $2.45
  2. Charlotte County (Trump): $1.74
  3. Halifax County (Trump): $1.62
  4. Prince William County (Biden): $1.31
  5. Alexandria (Biden):$1.26
  6. Manassas (Biden): $1.26
  7. Henrico County (Biden): $1.23
  8. Emporia (Biden): $1.15
  9. Charles City County (Biden): $1.09
  10. Fairfax County (Biden): $1.08
  11. Arlington County (Biden): $1.08
  12. Franklin (Biden): $0.96

The 10 largest grants (by grant size) in Virginia went to: [109]

  1. Fairfax County (Biden): $1,243,241
  2. Prince William County (Biden): $631,431
  3. Henrico County (Biden): $411,822
  4. Loudoun County (Biden): $355,760
  5. Arlington County (Biden): $256,688
  6. Alexandria (Biden): $201,650
  7. Petersburg (Biden): $81,890
  8. Lynchburg* (Biden): $63,882 (flip from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020)
  9. Halifax County (Trump): $55,270
  10. Manassas (Biden): $53,797

Fairfax County, the state’s largest county by population, filed for a 6-month extension to its CTCL grant in January 2021; it also reported spending CTCL funds in the following categories: [110]

  • $967,294 for “temporary staffing support”
  • $59,850 for “vote-by-mail/absentee voting equipment or supplies”
  • $102,765 for “election administration equipment”
  • $54,802 for “voting materials in languages other than English”
  • $58,530 for “security for office and polling locations”

The budget for Loudoun County’s election department was $2.3 million and its CTCL grant added an additional $355,760, the 4th-highest recipient of CTCL funds in Virginia and the equivalent of 15.5 percent of its original budget. Loudoun County applied for a grant to fund the following: [111] [112]

  • $3,021 for “non-partisan voter education”
  • $40,000 for “poll worker recruitment funds, hazard pay, and/or training expenses”
  • $230,000 for “temporary staffing”
  • $80,789 for “vote-by-mail/absentee voting equipment or supplies”
  • $1,950 for “election administration equipment

Loudoun County’s original grant application also included plans to spend CTCL funds on “personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff, poll workers, or voters,” but its final grant report indicated no money spent on PPE. In the grant report returned to CTCL on January 6, 2021, the county also indicated that, were its annual elections budget “permanently doubled,” it would aim to accomplish “improved voter education” and “increased election official training.” The county also wrote in its grant report: [113] [114]

This grant was unbelievably helpful and a major component of our ability to run an incredibly smooth and issue free election. Early voting was implemented for the first time in Virginia. We went from 14,000 ‘pre-election day voters’ in 2016 to 90,000 this year. Being able to improve the technology and expand our capabilities meant this went off without a hitch. Voters were thrilled with the process, the safety and security, and mostly with the fact that our max wait at any given time was about 15 minutes.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania received $25,011,085 from CTCL in 2020 flowing to 22 of the state’s 67 counties, including one additional grant to the Pennsylvania Department of State. [115]

CRC’s original estimate traced $22,069,215 in CTCL grants to 24 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, including two unidentified grants to Armstrong and Bucks Counties. [116]

CTCL grants to counties Trump won averaged $0.60 per capita and $2.85 per capita in counties Biden won.

These 22 counties delivered 1,819,184 votes to Republican Donald Trump and 2,511,414 votes to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election, a difference of 692,000 votes. These 22 CTCL-counties additionally contained roughly 8.9 million residents in 2020, approximately 68.5 percent of Pennsylvania’s 13 million residents. Pennsylvania’s remaining 44 counties provided Trump with 1.37 million votes and Biden with 773,504 votes. [117] [118]

CTCL funded 10 of the 13 counties Biden won in 2020, including Erie County, which voted for Trump in 2016 and flipped in 2020. These 10 counties received $20.8 million (83 percent) of all CTCL grants to Pennsylvania. In contrast, CTCL funded 12 of the 54 counties Trump won in 2020, yet total grants to these jurisdictions only totaled $1.73 million, or 7 percent of all grants to the state. [119]

In CTCL-funded counties, Trump received an additional 237,806 votes (a 15 percent over 2016 turnout) and Biden received an additional 418,068 votes (a 20 percent increase). CTCL-funded counties provided nearly 73 percent (2.5 million votes) of Biden’s statewide vote total and 53 percent (1.8 million votes) of Trump’s statewide total. [120]

On a per capita basis, the 5 largest CTCL grants all went to counties which Biden won, each of them larger than the biggest per capita grant to a county that Trump won (Berks County, $1.10 per capita): [121]

  1. Philadelphia: $6.56
  2. Centre: $5.46
  3. Chester: $4.79
  4. Delaware: $3.77
  5. Lehigh: $2.04

The ten largest CTCL grants in Pennsylvania (including the candidate who won them and the grant amounts) went to: [122]

  1. Philadelphia (Biden): $10,516,074
  2. Chester (Biden): $2,558,080
  3. Delaware (Biden): $2,440,000
  4. Allegheny (Biden): $2,052,251
  5. Montgomery (Biden): $1,167,000
  6. Centre (Biden): $863,828
  7. Lehigh (Biden): $762,635
  8. Lancaster (Trump): $525,082
  9. Dauphin (Biden): $482,165
  10. Berks (Trump): $470,929

In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of State received $2.44 million from CTCL. It’s unclear how those funds were spent, though they may have been distributed to counties. Another Zuckerberg-funded organization, the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), distributed its funds to secretaries of state in a similar fashion ahead of the 2020 election.

Texas

CTCL made grants totaling $38,621,136 to 83 of Texas’ 254 counties. (Additionally, the USC Schwarzenegger Institute gifted $250,973 to Cameron County, though that money didn’t originate with Mark Zuckerberg.) [123]

CRC’s original estimate traced $33,539,950 in CTCL grants to 118 of Texas’ 254 counties. [124] These counties account for roughly 20 million of Texas’ 29 million residents.

CTCL grants to Trump counties averaged $0.66 per capita and $2.03 per capita in Biden counties. [125]

CTCL gave grants to 67 of the 231 counties (29 percent) that Republican Donald Trump won in 2020 and 16 of the 22 counties (73 percent) that Democrat Joe Biden won in Texas that year. Three CTCL-funded counties (Williamson, Hays, Tarrant) that voted for Trump in 2016 flipped to Biden in 2020. [126]

No CTCL-funded counties flipped from Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Trump in 2020.  CRC originally believed that Zapata County, which voted for  Clinton in 2016 and flipped to Trump in 2020, received a CTCL grant of unknown size; however, no such grant appears in CTCL’s IRS disclosures. [127]

In total, CTCL-funded counties provided Trump with 3,575,307 votes and Biden with 4,039,848 votes. CTCL-funded counties won by Trump earned him 1,081,284 votes, or 18 percent of his statewide total of 5.89 million votes. CTCL-funded counties won by Biden earned him 3,638,368 votes, or 69 percent of his statewide total of 5.26 million votes. [128] [129]

In CTCL-funded counties, Trump received an additional 767,895 votes and Biden received an additional 1,035,994 votes over their 2016 totals. [130]

Biden’s biggest gains (exceeding 100,000 votes over 2016 Democratic turnout) were in the counties covering Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth, and netted him 2.8 million votes, over half of his 5.3 million votes statewide. All of these counties received substantial CTCL grants totaling $29,356,811, or 76 percent of all grants CRC has traced to Texas. Of these five, two cities (Houston and Dallas) received nearly $25 million of this sum between them. Dallas’ $15 million grant is the largest grant yet identified anywhere in the country. [131]

The 15 largest CTCL grants in Texas (including the candidate who won them and the grant amounts) went to: [132]

  1. Dallas (Biden): $15,130,433
  2. Harris (Biden): $9,673,446
  3. Webb (Biden): $2,435,169
  4. Bexar (Biden): $1,909,242
  5. Cameron (Biden): $1,853,729
  6. Tarrant County (Biden): $1,678,523 (flipped to Biden in 2020 from Trump in 2016)
  7. Hidalgo County (Biden): $984,362
  8. Travis (Biden): $975,167
  9. El Paso County (Biden): $840,157
  10. Fort Bend County (Biden): $506,500
  11. Nueces County (Trump): $337,608
  12. Montgomery County (Trump): $272,180
  13. Williamson County (Biden): $263,644 (flipped to Biden in 2020 from Trump in 2016)
  14. Hays (Biden): $165,640 (flipped to Biden in 2020 from Trump in 2016)
  15. Potter County (Trump): $87,143

On a per capita basis, the 10 largest CTCL-funded counties went to: [133]

  1. Webb (Biden): $8.80
  2. Dallas (Biden): $5.79
  3. Cameron (Biden): $4.38
  4. Refugio (Trump): $2.50
  5. Harris (Biden): $2.04
  6. Bee (Trump): $1.91
  7. Duval (Biden): $1.51
  8. Dimmit (Biden): $1.48
  9. Brooks (Biden): $1.30
  10. Hidalgo (Biden): $1.13

The two counties on this list that voted for Trump (Refugio and Bee) together only gave him 39,513 votes in 2020. Biden, in contrast, received 1.76 million votes in these 10 counties; Trump won 1.2 million across these 10 counties. [134]

North Carolina

In North Carolina, CTCL gave $7,188,264 to 27 of North Carolina’s 100 counties, including a grant of $4,274,785 to either the North Carolina Board of Elections or Department of State; the address listed is that of the former, but CTCL’s Form 990 report claims it granted to the latter. Which it actually gave to is unclear. [135]

CRC originally traced $5,395,114 to 35 of North Carolina’s 100 counties. [136] Together these counties contain 4.47 million of the state’s 10.49 million residents. Two counties flipped from Trump to Biden between 2016 and 2020 (Nash and New Hanover) and one county, Scotland, flipped from Democrat Hillary Clinton to Trump between 2016 and 2020; no CTCL grants have been traced to these counties.

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants to counties Trump won averaged $0.73 and $1.46 in counties won by Biden. [137]

CTCL gave grants to 21 of the 75 counties Republican Donald Trump won in 2020 totaling $1,041,551, or 15 percent of the total grants paid in the state. CTCL gave grants to 6 of the 25 counties Democrat Joe Biden won in the 2020 election totaling $1,871,928, or 26 percent of the total known grants in North Carolina. However, it’s likely that much if not all of the $4.3 million CTCL gave to the Department of State was redistributed to counties, although that remains unknown. [138]

In total, CTCL-funded counties provided Trump with 782,194 votes and Biden with 691,343 votes. CTCL-funded counties won by Trump earned him 634,037 votes, or 23 percent of his statewide total of 2.76 million votes. CTCL-funded counties won by Biden earned him 349,812 votes, or 13 percent of his statewide total of 2.68 million votes. [139] [140]

In CTCL-funded counties, Trump gained an average of 17.4 percent more votes than he did in 2016 for a total of 125,126 additional votes. Biden gained an average of 22.3 percent more votes than did his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, in 2016 for a total of 138,746 additional votes.

The ten largest CTCL grants in North Carolina (including the candidate who won them and the grant amounts) went to: [141]

  1. North Carolina Department of State: $4,274,785
  2. Durham (Biden): $1,341,779
  3. Orange (Biden): $291,256
  4. Buncombe (Biden): $135,881
  5. Johnston (Trump): $112,054
  6. Union (Trump): $101,756
  7. Alamance (Trump): $101,061
  8. Iredell (Trump): $96,648
  9. Catawba (Trump): $91,068
  10. Randolph (Trump): $81,964

On a per capita basis, the 10 most-funded counties in North Carolina were: [142]

  1. Durham (Biden): $4.13
  2. Orange (Biden): $1.96
  3. Lenoir (Trump): $1.09
  4. Hoke (Biden): $0.94
  5. Jones (Trump): $0.91
  6. Beaufort (Trump): $0.73
  7. Craven (Trump): $0.70
  8. Swain (Trump): $0.69
  9. Pamlico (Trump): $0.69
  10. Alleghany (Trump): $0.66

Of these 10 counties, the 3 that Biden won received nearly $1.7 million from CTCL and provided him with 220,000 votes. The remaining 7 counties that voted for Trump received just $196,807 from CTCL and gave him less than 79,000 votes. [143]

Michigan

CTCL gave $16,862,627 to 466 jurisdictions in Michigan, the majority of which are townships and cities, not counties. In most states CTCL gave funds directly to counties and it’s unclear why it operated differently in Michigan. The minimum grant a jurisdiction could apply for was $5,000; 135 jurisdictions received grants above the $5,000 minimum, and out of these grants 45 localities were won by Trump, while 90 were won by Biden. Cities and townships that voted for Trump overwhelmingly received CTCL’s minimum grant of $5,000, and a few received even less. [144]

CRC originally traced CTCL grants totaling $7,449,258 in Michigan. [145]

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants to counties Trump won averaged $0.45; in counties Biden won CTCL grants averaged $1.83. CTCL’s 39 largest per capita grants all went to cities which Biden won, receiving an average of 75 percent of all votes cast and giving Biden roughly 1 million votes, or one-third of all votes he received across Michigan. The top ten per capita recipients were: [146]

  1. Benton Harbor: $13.27
  2. Detroit: $11.64
  3. Muskegon: $11.32
  4. Saginaw: $9.11
  5. Pontiac: $6.58
  6. Southfield: $5.82
  7. Ypsilanti: $4.86
  8. Lansing: $4.34
  9. East Lansing: $4.19
  10. Flint: $3.84

The ten largest recipients of CTCL grants in Michigan were: [147]

  1. Detroit: $7,436,450
  2. Lansing: $448,390
  3. Southfield: $446,225
  4. Muskegon: $433,580
  5. Ann Arbor: $417,268
  6. Wayne County: $416,399
  7. Pontiac: $405,640
  8. Saginaw: $402,878
  9. Dearborn: $400,000
  10. Flint: $312,328
  11. Grand Rapids: $280,852
  12. Kalamazoo: $218,869
  13. Battle Creek: $200,000
  14. East Lansing: $200,000
  15. Westland: $178,789
  16. Oakland County: $157,908
  17. Livonia: $142,154
  18. Benton Harbor: $120,840
  19. Ypsilanti: $100,399
  20. Farmington Hills: $91,172

In October 2021, the Wisconsin State Journal traced CTCL grants to 214 Wisconsin counties, cities, and towns and received grant information on  177 of them. According to the Journal: [148]

  • The average, per-capita grant amount for the state’s five largest cities — Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha and Racine — was $11.26
  • Some of the highest amounts were in Racine and Green Bay at $21.83 and $15.14, respectively. In Madison, the amount received per capita was $4.71, while the amount Milwaukee took in worked out to $5.91 per person
  • The tiny towns of Marshall (population 540), Mount Hope (282) and Harrison, in Marathon County (312), also collected some of the highest amounts on a per-capita basis, as $18.52, $17.73 and $16.03 respectively
  • For all cities, the average grant was $2.33 a person, while for villages it was $5.01, and for towns it was $4.97. The statewide average among all 177 counties and municipalities was $4.21 per person
  • The most common grant amount — received by 143 of the 177 entities that reported their grant amounts — was $5,000, and was typically given to the state’s smallest communities[.]

Wisconsin

CTCL gave grants totaling $10,108,644 to 31 cities and counties in Wisconsin. The minimum grant a jurisdiction could apply for was $5,000; CTCL distributed 28 grants above the $5,000 minimum to Wisconsin cities and townships and 3 grants to counties. Out of these 28 cities, Trump won 8 and Biden won 20. The 20 cities that voted for Biden received roughly 90 percent of all CTCL funds in Wisconsin. Across all CTCL-funded cities (receiving grants over $5,000), Biden received over 608,000 votes; Trump received just over 286,000.[149]

CRC originally traced CTCL grants totaling $6,671,844 in Wisconsin. [150]

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants to Trump counties averaged $0.55; in counties Biden won they averaged $3.75. For grants over the $5,000 minimum, 9 of CTCL’s 10 largest per capita grants went to cities which Biden won. The top ten cities on a per capita basis were: [151]

  1. Racine: $21.83
  2. Green Bay: $11.60
  3. Kenosha: $8.63
  4. Milwaukee: $5.91
  5. Madison: $4.71
  6. Janesville: $2.79
  7. Cottage Grove: $1.37
  8. Wausau: $1.25
  9. Rice Lake (Trump): $1.11
  10. West Allis: $1.03

Georgia

CTCL made grants totaling $45,013,990 to 43 of Georgia’s 159 counties. Together these counties account for 7.2 million of Georgia’s 10.62 million residents. [152]

CRC originally traced $27,837,728 in grants to 43 Georgia counties. [153] [154] The center-right Foundation for Government Accountability, a watchdog group, also traced a total of $45 million from CTCL to Georgia in a May 2021 report. [155]

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants to counties that Donald Trump won averaged $1.41 and $5.33 that in counties Joe Biden won. CTCL’s 10 biggest grants per capita all went to counties that Biden won, 6 of which are part of the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. Together, these 10 counties gave Biden 60 percent (1.49 million votes) of his statewide total in Georgia, and nearly 378,000 votes over 2016 Democratic turnout. Trump, however, only received 691,000 votes in these counties in 2020, an increase of just 92,000 votes over his 2016 performance: [156]

  1. Clayton: $12.88
  2. DeKalb: $12.59
  3. Douglas: $11.53
  4. Fulton: $10.01
  5. Cobb: $7.39
  6. Gwinnett: $6.69
  7. Macon-Bibb: $4.78
  8. Muscogee: $3.50
  9. Chatham: $3.49
  10. Dougherty: $3.44

The biggest per capita grant to a Trump county went to Early County ($3.42), where Trump earned just 2,710 votes. Clayton County, CTCL’s biggest per capita target, netted Biden over 95,000 votes. [157]

CTCL grants flowed to 26 of the 128 counties Trump won in 2020, totaling $2.6 million, or less than 6 percent of the $45 million CTCL gave to Georgia. In contrast, CTCL grants flowed to 17 of the 31 counties that Biden won in 2020, totaling $42.4 million, or 94 percent of all CTCL grants to Georgia. [158]

The 43 counties that received CTCL grants gave Trump 1.35 million votes (55 percent of his statewide total) and Biden 1.96 million votes (73 percent of his statewide total). In CTCL-funded counties, Trump’s turnout increased by 18 percent (203,000 votes) over 2016 turnout. For Biden, turnout increased by 35 percent (510,000 votes) over 2016 Democratic turnout, twice as much as Trump’s increase. [159] [160]

The top ten recipients of CTCL funding, with the winner and grant amount, are below: [161]

  1. Fulton (Biden): $10,673,036
  2. DeKalb (Biden): $9,625,041
  3. Gwinnett (Biden): $6,398,525
  4. Cobb (Biden): $5,662,659
  5. Clayton (Biden): $3,832,302
  6. Douglas (Biden): $1,662,490
  7. Chatham (Biden): $1,030,786
  8. Cherokee (Trump): $765,298
  9. Macon-Bibb (Biden): $752,712
  10. Muscogee (Biden): $724,740
  11. Richmond (Biden): $670,929
  12. Forsyth (Trump): $528,622
  13. Henry (Biden): $487,794
  14. Lowndes (Trump): $346,368
  15. Rockdale (Biden): $315,681
  16. Dougherty (Biden): $295,235
  17. Carroll (Trump): $170,733
  18. Newton (Biden): $156,875
  19. Athens-Clarke (Biden): $115,875
  20. Spalding (Trump): $96,793

Arizona

CTCL gave grants totaling $5,169,724 to 8 of Arizona’s 15 counties, accounting for roughly 6.4 million of the state’s 7.3 million residents. [162]

CRC originally traced $5,027,389 to Arizona. [163]

Democrat Joe Biden won 5 of Arizona’s 15 counties, 4 of which received CTCL grants totaling $3.9 million, nearly 76 percent of all CTCL grants to the state. These 4 counties contained 1,413,746 of Biden’s votes, or nearly 85 of the 1.67 million votes he earned statewide, and hold roughly 79 percent of the state’s total population. Biden grew his turnout over 2016 Democratic turnout by 694,000 votes in CTCL-funded counties in 2020. [164] [165]

In contrast, CTCL funded 4 of the 10 counties Trump won, containing 187,146 of the 1.66 million votes he won statewide (11 percent) and housing 11.6 percent of the total population. CTCL grants to Trump counties totaled just under $671,000, just 13 percent of all CTCL grants statewide. Trump’s turnout grew over 2016 turnout by 563,000 votes in CTCL-funded counties. [166] [167]

Only one county in Arizona flipped from the 2016 election in 2020: Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, which voted for Biden. Maricopa County received $1.84 million from CTCL. [168]

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants to counties Biden won averaged $3.47; in counties that Trump won, they averaged $2.16. The 8 counties that received CTCL grants in 2020 are ranked according to per capita spending: [169]

Per capita, CTCL grants in counties Biden won averaged $5.83 and $1.29 in counties that Trump won.

  1. Apache (Biden): $8.93
  2. Navajo (Trump): $5.56
  3. Coconino (Biden): $3.62
  4. Pinal (Trump): $1.11
  5. La Paz (Trump): $1.06
  6. Pima (Biden): $0.91
  7. Yuma (Trump): $0.89
  8. Maricopa (Biden): $0.42

The 8 CTCL-funded counties are listed below according to the grant size and winner: [170]

  1. Maricopa (Biden): $1,840,345
  2. Pima (Biden): $950,446
  3. Navajo (Trump): $593,789
  4. Apache (Biden): $589,700
  5. Coconino (Biden): $524,585
  6. Pinal (Trump): $472,562
  7. Yuma (Trump): $180,765
  8. La Paz (Trump): $17,532

Nevada

Nevada received $2,671,515 in grants from CTCL to just 2 of the state’s 17 counties, which together contain 2.74 million of the state’s 3 million residents and the state’s 8-largest cities. CRC’s original 2021 estimate for Nevada’s CTCL grants was entirely accurate. [171] [172]

These two counties, Clark (centered on Las Vegas) and Washoe (centered on Reno), were the only counties Democrat Joe Biden won in 2020 and accounted for 649,980 votes, or 92.4 percent of all his votes statewide. Republican Donald Trump received 547,690 votes in these two CTCL-funded counties, or 81.76 percent of his statewide total. [173] [174] [175]

On a per capita basis, CTCL grants averaged $0.89 in counties Biden won (there were only two) and $0.00 in counties Trump won, since no county that voted for Trump received a CTCL grant. [176]

Other State CTCL Filings

The following are public filings related to CTCL COVID-19 relief grants in 2020 in states where information was obtained, either by the Capital Research Center or by other organizations conducting public records requests.

Note: This section will continue to be updated as new public documents are obtained. For a list of state-by-state CTCL grant totals, see: “Which States Did CTCL Flood with ‘Zuck Bucks’?

Idaho

Funding and Support

Financial Overview

The following is an overview of the finances of CTCL between 2015 and 2020: [177]

CTCL: Financial Overview
YearTotal RevenuesTotal ExpendituresGrants PaidNet Assets
2020 $356,251,345 $335,429,878 $332,090,025 $23,877,800
2019 $3,404,409 $1,376,946 - $3,056,333
2018 $1,414,981 $1,119,630 - $1,028,870
2017 $1,044,134 $841,577 - $733,519
2016 $970,937 $1,002,928 - $479,962
2015 $1,013,853 $501,900 - $511,953
Total: $364,099,659 $340,272,859 $332,090,025

2020 was the first year that CTCL paid out grants, and the group distributed $332 million in grants to government elections offices across the United States as part of its COVID-19 “relief funds” program. The funds were provided by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Zuckerberg is historically the largest donor to Silicon Valley Community Foundation, gifting it $1.75 billion in 2010 and $200 million in Facebook shares in 2018. [178] [179]

Funding from Mark Zuckerberg (2020)

On September 1, 2020, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, announced they were donating $250 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation & Research. [180] Shortly after, CTCL stated its plans to regrant the money to local election jurisdictions across the United States to help them process mailed-in ballots and meet sanitation requirements imposed on polling stations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. [181]

In October 2020, Zuckerberg and Chan announced they were donating an additional $100 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life despite the first round of grants sparking controversy among conservatives, leading some groups to file lawsuits. “Since our initial donation, there have been multiple lawsuits filed in an attempt to block these funds from being used, based on claims that the organizations receiving donations have a partisan agenda. That’s false,” Zuckerberg said. [182]

Zuckerberg’s $328,176,850 donation was channeled through the couple’s donor-advised fund (DAF) housed at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, one of the largest community foundations in the United States and the second-largest donation it made that year. The couple’s $69.5 million donation to the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) was also channeled through the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative’s DAF housed at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the third-largest grant the latter paid out in 2020. [183] [184]

Other Donors to CTCL

Besides the large sum Zuckerberg and Chan gave to CTCL, CTCL has received financial and other assistance from several center-left foundations and advocacy organizations.

The New Venture Fund was CTCL’s second-largest donor in 2020 after Zuckerberg, gifting CTCL $24,829,000. The New Venture Fund is part of a multi-billion-dollar pass-through nonprofit network for liberal donors to support center- and far-left political causes run by Arabella Advisors, a consultancy in Washington, D.C. [185]

In April 2020 the Skoll Foundation awarded CTCL a $1.5 million grant. [186] And for donation years 2015 through 2017 the charitable recordkeeping service FoundationSearch reports more than $1.3 million in total donations to CTCL from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, as well as at least $690,000 from the Democracy Fund to CTCL, and another $10,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to CTCL. [187]

According to the 2020 IRS Form 990 filings, CTCL was also the recipient of a $24,829,000 grant from the New Venture Fund, the largest 501(c)(3) arm of the Arabella Advisors dark money network. [188]

On its “Key Funders and Partners” web page, the Center for Tech and Civic Life also credits these organizations as having “supported” its work:[189]

Financial Documents

Leadership

Leadership

Tiana Epps-Johnson is the founder, executive director, and president of the Center for Tech and Civic Life. Before joining the Center, she was the election administration director of the New Organizing Institute from 2012 to 2015. The New Organizing Institute was a major training center for left-of-center Democratic digital activists from its founding in 2005 to its dissolution in 2015. Epps-Johnson had also worked at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, helping with its Voting Rights Project. [190] She also sits on CTCL’s board of directors.

Whitney May is the co-founder and director of CTCL’s government services department. She had previously worked on the Voting Information Project at the New Organizing Institute. [191]

Donny Bridges is the co-founder and director of CTCL’s civic data department. Prior to joining CTCL, he worked as the election administration research director at the New Organizing Institute from 2012 to 2015. [192]

The Center for Tech and Civic Life’s board of directors includes Pam Anderson, the owner of the nonprofit management consulting firm Consilium Colorado; Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor to the elections program at Pierre Omidyar‘s Democracy Fund, a left-of-center policy foundation; Sureel Sheth, vice president of JMI Equity in San Diego, a growth equity firm; and Cristina Sinclaire, the senior vice president of Clarity Campaign Labs. Sinclaire previously worked at Catalist, providing data to over 200 progressive organizations, and at the New Organizing Institute, researching voting laws and building data tools. [193]

Board of Advisors

CTCL’s board of advisors consists of a number of former and current elections divisions officers for various jurisdictions in the United States. [194]

Kim A. Barton is supervisor of elections for Alachua County, Florida. In September 2020, CTCL awarded Alachua County $707,606 as part of its COVID-19 relief grants; Barton is listed as the recipient of the grant in her capacity as supervisor of elections. [195]

Toni Pippins-Poole is elections administrator for Dallas County, Texas. In September 2020, CTCL awarded Dallas County $15,130,433 as part of its COVID-19 relief grants. [196]

Grace Wachlarowicz is assistant city clerk to the Minneapolis, Minnesota director of elections and voter services. In September 2020, CTCL awarded Minneapolis $2,297,342 in COVID-19 relief grants. [197]

Maurice Turner is senior advisor to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Tim Tsujii is director of elections for the Forsyth County, North Carolina board of elections.

Whitney Quesenbery is director for the Center for Civic Design.

Ricky Hatch is clerk/auditor for Weber County, Utah.

Joanna Francescut is assistant county clerk and registrar of voters for Shasta County, California.

Norelys R. Consuegra is deputy director of elections for the Rhode Island secretary of state.

Indira Arriaga is language assistance compliance manager for Alaska division of elections.

References

  1. “The Center for Technology and Civic Life”. Democracy Fund. Accessed May 11, 2020.  https://www.democracyfund.org/portfolio/entry/the-center-for-technology-and-civic-life ^
  2. Grego, Suzana. “Skoll Foundation Announces 2020 Awards for Social Entrepreneurship.” Skoll Foundation. April 15, 2020. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://skoll.org/2020/04/15/skoll-foundation-announces-2020-awards-for-social-entrepreneurship-clone/ ^
  3. Data compiled by FoundationSearch.com subscription service, a project of Metasoft Systems, Inc., from forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Queries conducted May 19, 2020. ^
  4. “Our Team.” The Center for Tech and Civil Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/team/. ^
  5. Fung, Brian. “Inside the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for Digital Wizardry,” April 24, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/08/inside-the-democratic-partys-hogwarts-for-digital-wizardry/. ^
  6. “Board of Directors.” Center for Tech and Civic Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/board-of-directors/. ^
  7. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Silicon Valley Community Foundation. 2020. Schedule I. ^
  8. Allen, Mike. “Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Invest $300 Million in Election Infrastructure,” September 1, 2020. https://www.axios.com/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-election-security-a4950a93-2efd-42a6-9d7a-5fcc763f9214.html. ^
  9. Culliford, Elizabeth. “Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan Donate $100 Million More to U.S. Election Infrastructure,” October 13, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-zuckerberg-chan/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-donate-100-million-more-to-u-s-election-infrastructure-idUSKBN26Y22Z. ^
  10. Kenneth P. Vogel. “Short of Money to Run Elections, Local Authorities Turn to Private Funds.” New York Times. September 25, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/elections-private-grants-zuckerberg.html ^
  11. Nicholas Riccardi. “‘Not Plan A’: Charities are stepping up to pay for elections.” Associated Press. Sept. 16, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/technology-elections-denver-mark-zuckerberg-election-2020-92257bbc1fefd9ed0e18861e5b5913f6 ^
  12. Nicholas Riccardi. “‘Not Plan A’: Charities are stepping up to pay for elections.” Associated Press. Sept. 16, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/technology-elections-denver-mark-zuckerberg-election-2020-92257bbc1fefd9ed0e18861e5b5913f6 ^
  13. Christopher Caldwell. “This Poll Shows Just How Much Trouble Democrats Are In.” New York Times. Jan. 25, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/opinion/gallup-poll-democrats.html ^
  14. Tom Scheck, Geoff Hing, Sabby Robinson, Gracie Stockton. “How Private Money From Facebook’s CEO Saved The 2020 Election.” National Public Radio. Dec. 8, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election ^
  15. Kenneth P. Vogel. “Short of Money to Run Elections, Local Authorities Turn to Private Funds.” New York Times. September 25, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/elections-private-grants-zuckerberg.html ^
  16. Nicholas Riccardi. “‘Not Plan A’: Charities are stepping up to pay for elections.” Associated Press. Sept. 16, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/technology-elections-denver-mark-zuckerberg-election-2020-92257bbc1fefd9ed0e18861e5b5913f6 ^
  17. Steve Coll. “Battling Anxiety Over Making Sure Your Vote Gets Counted.” The New Yorker. Sept. 4, 2020. Accessed Jan. 24, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/battling-anxiety-over-making-sure-your-vote-gets-counted ^
  18. Kody. “Our Story.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, April 26, 2021. https://www.techandciviclife.org/our-story/. ^
  19. “Center for Tech and Civic Life”. Skoll. Accessed May 11, 2020. https://skoll.org/organization/center-for-tech-and-civic-life/ ^
  20. “IRS.gov Applications.” Details about Center for technology and civic life. Accessed July 12, 2021. https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=472158694&name=Center+for+Technology+and+Civic+Life&city=Chicago&state=IL&countryAbbr=US&dba=&type=CHARITIES%2C+DETERMINATIONLETTERS%2C+COPYOFRETURNS&orgTags=COPYOFRETURNS. Archive: Photo of CTCL’s IRS Recognition | NOI 2014 form 990. ^
  21. Archive: Photo of CTCL’s IRS Recognition | NOI 2014 form 990. ^
  22. “Tiana Epps-Johnson.” LinkedIn. Accessed June 11, 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/in/tianaej/. ^
  23. “Whitney May.” LinkedIn. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/in/whitney-maybe/ ^
  24. “Donny Bridges.” LinkedIn Profile. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/in/donny-bridges-4880bb7/ ^
  25. “Judith Freeman Profile.” LinkedIn. Accessed Jan. 5, 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/in/judithfreeman/ ^
  26. “Zack Exley: Open Society Foundations Fellowship.” Open Society Foundations. March 2009-March 2010. Accessed Jan. 5, 2021. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/open-society-fellowship?fellow=zack-exley ^
  27. Fung, Brian. “Inside the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for Digital Wizardry,” April 24, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/08/inside-the-democratic-partys-hogwarts-for-digital-wizardry/. ^
  28. Fung, Brian. “Inside the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for Digital Wizardry,” April 24, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/08/inside-the-democratic-partys-hogwarts-for-digital-wizardry/. ^
  29. “Democracy Alliance: 2014 Recommendations.” 2014. Accessed Jan. 5, 2021. https://www.scribd.com/doc/233121260/Democracy-Alliance-Docs-063014. See PDF page 90. ^
  30. “Fiscal Sponsorships.” New Organizing Institute. Archived on February 6, 2015. Accessed January 4, 2021. Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150206114522/http://neworganizing.com/content/page/fiscal-sponsorships. InfluenceWatch Archive: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/01/NOI-fiscal-sponsorship-archived-page.-01.21.pdf ^
  31. McMorris-Santoro, Evan. “Liberal Organizing Group Implodes In One Tumultuous Afternoon.” Buzzfeed News. February 10, 2015. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/evanmcsan/new-organizing-institute-implodes. ^
  32. McMorris-Santoro, Evan. “Liberal Organizing Group Implodes In One Tumultuous Afternoon.” Buzzfeed News. February 10, 2015. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/evanmcsan/new-organizing-institute-implodes. ^
  33. “Wellstone to continue NOI’s work developing the next generation of progressive digital and data strategy.” Wellstone. October 9, 2015. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.wellstone.org/noi. ^
  34. “Civic Data”. Center for Technology and Civic Life. Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/our-work/civic-data/ ^
  35. “2019 Attendee Bios” Center for Tech and Civic Life.  Accessed May 11, 2020. https://tiana-eppsjohnson-49eh.squarespace.com/ballot2019/bios ^
  36. “Election officials”. Center for Technology and Civic Life. Accessed May 11, 2020.  https://www.techandciviclife.org/our-work/election-officials/ ^
  37. “Implementing CTCL’s Cybersecurity Training Statewide: A 2020 Virginia Case Study.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, n.d. https://www.techandciviclife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/VA-Case-Study.pdf. ^
  38. “CTCL Delivers Cybersecurity Training to Virginia Election Officials.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, March 25, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/virginia-cybersecurity-training/. ^
  39. “Watch Now: Free Vote at Home Webinars for Election Officials.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, May 22, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/vote-at-home/. ^
  40. “Ensuring Access, Equity, and Inclusion.” Chicago: Center for Tech and Civic Life, May 28, 2020. https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Equity-and-Inclusion.-May-2020.pdf ^
  41. “Organizing Ballot Dropoff Locations.” Chicago: Center for Tech and Civic Life, June 16, 2020. https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Organizing-Ballot-Drop-Off.-June-2020.pdf ^
  42. “Combatting Election Misinformation.” Chicago: Center for Tech and Civic Life, July 20, 2020. https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Combating-Election-Misinformation.-July-2020.pdf ^
  43. Roje, Philip. “Virus-Proofing the Vote: Democracy Funders Respond to COVID-19” Inside Philanthropy. Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2020/4/1/virus-proofing-the-vote-democracy-funders-respond-to-covid-19 ^
  44. Allen, Mike. “Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Invest $300 Million in Election Infrastructure,” September 1, 2020. https://www.axios.com/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-election-security-a4950a93-2efd-42a6-9d7a-5fcc763f9214.html. ^
  45. Culliford, Elizabeth. “Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan Donate $100 Million More to U.S. Election Infrastructure,” October 13, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-zuckerberg-chan/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-donate-100-million-more-to-u-s-election-infrastructure-idUSKBN26Y22Z. ^
  46. CTCLAdmin. “CTCL Program Awards Over 2,500 COVID-19 Response Grants,” November 10, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/grant-awards/. Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20201121080557/https://www.techandciviclife.org/grant-awards/ ^
  47. CTCLAdmin. “A First Look at CTCL Grant Program Impact.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, November 13, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/grant-update-november/. ^
  48. “CTCL COVID-19 Response Grant Report.” Fairfax County, VA. Obtained via FOIA request; credit to Clayton Percle of the Virginia Liberty Project. Accessed May 13, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/05/CTCL-FOIA-Report-Fairfax-County-Virginia.pdf ^
  49. “CTCL Announces COVID-19 Response Rural Grants Program.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, August 7, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/covid-19-rural-grants/. ^
  50. “Non-Profits Providing Vote by Mail Support to City and County Election Offices.” Ballotpedia. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Non-profits_providing_vote_by_mail_support_to_city_and_county_election_offices. ^
  51. “CTCL Announces COVID-19 Response Rural Grants Program.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, August 7, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/covid-19-rural-grants/. ^
  52. “CTCL Announces COVID-19 Response Rural Grants Program.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, August 7, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/covid-19-rural-grants/. ^
  53. Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020. Submitted to the Center for Tech & Civic Life. June 15, 2020. https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Wisconsin-Safe-Voting-Plan.pdf ^
  54. Lai, Jonathan. “Philly Is about to Get $10 Million for Mail Ballot Drop Boxes, Early Voting, and Raises for Poll Workers,” August 26, 2020. https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/philadelphia-2020-election-funding-20200826.html. ^
  55. “Philadelphia City Commissioners’ Chairwoman Lisa Deeley to Propose Motion to Accept $10 Million Grant to Conduct Safe Election This Fall.” Accessed October 26, 2020. https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/home/item/1827-motion_to_accept_grant_for_safe_election. ^
  56. Action Network Fund, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax (Form 990), 2016-2019. ^
  57. Center for Tech and Civic Life. “Safe Voting Plan Grant Request: Georgia January Runoff Election.” https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/Template-Georgia-Runoff-Safe-Voting-Plan-Template.docx ^
  58. Center for Tech and Civic Life. “CTCL COVID-19 Response Grants Available for Georgia Runoff.” November 17, 2020. https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Georgia-Runoff-Response-Grants.pdf ^
  59. Kittle, M.D. “Zuckerberg Helped A Democrat Operative Run Wisconsin’s 2020 Vote.” The Federalist, March 10, 2021. https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/10/how-mark-zuckerbergs-election-money-helped-an-out-of-state-democrat-get-his-han. ^
  60. “Preliminary List, Grants Awarded: CTCL COVID-19 Response Grants.” Center for Technology and Civic Life. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E7P3owIO6UlpMY1GaeE8nJVw2x6Ee-iI9d37hEEr5ZA/edit#gid=1993755695

    Note: Spreadsheet does not provide grant amounts. Many states include villages, towns, townships, and cities as well as counties as CTCL grant recipients. Some states include state elections boards. For a complete list by state see linked spreadsheet. ^

  61. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Center for Technology and Civic Life. 2020. Schedule I. Archived here: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/01/center-for-tech-and-civic-life-2020-990-updated.pdf ^
  62. Parker Thayer, Hayden Ludwig. “Which States Did CTCL Flood with ‘Zuck Bucks’?” Capital Research Center. Jan. 21, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/which-states-did-ctcl-flood-with-zuck-bucks/

    Note: The reason for the great disparity between the preliminary vs. actual grants reported is unclear. ^

  63. State of Louisiana v. Center for Technology and Civic Life, New Venture Fund, et al. Filed October 2, 2020. Accessed May 12, 2021. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020.10.02-AG-Petition.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/05/Louisiana-v-CTCL-New-Venture-Fund.-10.02.2020.pdf ^
  64. State of Louisiana v. Center for Technology and Civic Life, New Venture Fund, et al. Filed October 2, 2020. Accessed May 12, 2021. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020.10.02-AG-Petition.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/05/Louisiana-v-CTCL-New-Venture-Fund.-10.02.2020.pdf ^
  65. State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, Et Al. State of Louisiana, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Accessed April 5, 2022. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-0670opi.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/04/louisiana-lawsuit-reversal-ctcl-and-new-venture-fund-2022.pdf

    See PDF p. 9 ^

  66. State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, Et Al. State of Louisiana, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Accessed April 5, 2022. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-0670opi.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/04/louisiana-lawsuit-reversal-ctcl-and-new-venture-fund-2022.pdf

    See PDF p. 10 ^

  67. Sam Karlin. “Judge rules against Jeff Landry in suit against Zuckerberg-backed nonprofit over free election money.” The Baton Rouge Advocate. Oct. 26, 2020. Accessed May 12, 2021. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_52b60760-17a9-11eb-9999-ef2b2c1bffcb.html ^
  68. State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, Et Al. State of Louisiana, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Accessed April 5, 2022. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-0670opi.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/04/louisiana-lawsuit-reversal-ctcl-and-new-venture-fund-2022.pdf ^
  69. State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, Et Al. State of Louisiana, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Accessed April 5, 2022. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-0670opi.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/04/louisiana-lawsuit-reversal-ctcl-and-new-venture-fund-2022.pdf

    See PDF pp. 5-6 ^

  70. State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, Et Al. State of Louisiana, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Accessed April 5, 2022. Original URL: https://lailluminator.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-0670opi.pdf. Archived URL: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2022/04/louisiana-lawsuit-reversal-ctcl-and-new-venture-fund-2022.pdf

    See PDF p. 8, 24 ^

  71. Hayden Ludwig. “Mark Zuckerberg Meddled in Battleground State Elections: Here’s How.” Capital Research Center. March 3, 2021. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/mark-zuckerberg-meddled-in-battleground-state-elections-heres-how/ ^
  72. Love, Alex. “Hinds County Election Commission Moves to RESCIND $1.5m Grant Due to Suspected Racketeering by SUPERVISOR ARCHIE,” October 13, 2020. https://www.wjtv.com/news/local/hinds-county-election-commission-rescinds-1-5m-grant-due-to-suspected-racketeering-by-supervisor-archie/. ^
  73. Warren, Anthony. “Election Commission Chair Resigns Minutes before Board Votes Her Out.” https://www.wlbt.com. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.wlbt.com/2021/07/23/election-commission-chair-resigns-minutes-before-board-votes-her-out/. ^
  74. Warren, Anthony. “Elections Grant Money Used to Buy Big-Screen Tvs, Home Projectors, Documents Show.” https://www.wlbt.com. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.wlbt.com/2021/07/26/elections-grant-used-buy-big-screen-tvs-home-projectors-documents-show/. ^
  75. Warren, Anthony. “Elections Grant Money Used to Buy Big-Screen Tvs, Home Projectors, Documents Show.” https://www.wlbt.com. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.wlbt.com/2021/07/26/elections-grant-used-buy-big-screen-tvs-home-projectors-documents-show/. ^
  76. Warren, Anthony. “Elections Grant Money Used to Buy Big-Screen Tvs, Home Projectors, Documents Show.” https://www.wlbt.com. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.wlbt.com/2021/07/26/elections-grant-used-buy-big-screen-tvs-home-projectors-documents-show/. ^
  77. Warren, Anthony. “Elections Grant Money Used to Buy Big-Screen Tvs, Home Projectors, Documents Show.” https://www.wlbt.com. Accessed July 27, 2021. https://www.wlbt.com/2021/07/26/elections-grant-used-buy-big-screen-tvs-home-projectors-documents-show/. ^
  78. Kittle, M.D. “Special Investigation: Infiltrating the Election.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/special-investigation-infiltrating-the-election/. ^
  79. Kittle, M.D. “Special Investigation: Infiltrating the Election.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/special-investigation-infiltrating-the-election/. ^
  80. Kittle, M.D. “Special Investigation: Infiltrating the Election.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/special-investigation-infiltrating-the-election/. ^
  81. Kittle, M.D. “Special Investigation: Infiltrating the Election.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/special-investigation-infiltrating-the-election/. ^
  82. Kittle, M.D. “Special Investigation: Infiltrating the Election.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/special-investigation-infiltrating-the-election/. ^
  83. “Wauwatosa in ZUCKERBERG’S WEB.” Wisconsin Spotlight. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://wisconsinspotlight.com/wauwatosa-in-zuckerbergs-web/. ^
  84. Shepherd, Todd. “’Blue’ Southeast PA Counties Had Head Start on Election Grants.” Broad + Liberty, June 8, 2021. https://broadandliberty.com/2021/06/07/blue-southeast-pa-counties-had-head-start-on-election-grants/. ^
  85. Shepherd, Todd. “’Blue’ Southeast PA Counties Had Head Start on Election Grants.” Broad + Liberty, June 8, 2021. https://broadandliberty.com/2021/06/07/blue-southeast-pa-counties-had-head-start-on-election-grants/. ^
  86. Shepherd, Todd. “Democratic Strategist Linked to Early Push on Controversial Election Grants.” Broad + Liberty, June 14, 2021. https://broadandliberty.com/2021/06/14/democratic-strategist-tied-to-election-grants/. ^
  87. Shepherd, Todd. “Democratic Strategist Linked to Early Push on Controversial Election Grants.” Broad + Liberty, June 14, 2021. https://broadandliberty.com/2021/06/14/democratic-strategist-tied-to-election-grants/. ^
  88. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Center for Technology and Civic Life. 2020. Schedule I. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/12/Center-for-Tech-and-Civic-Life-2020-Form-990.pdf ^
  89. Mina Corpuz. ”
    Third person arrested in connection to Hinds County embezzlement case.” Clarion Ledger. Feb. 22, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2022/02/22/business-owner-arrested-connection-embezzlement-hinds-county/6896269001/ ^
  90. Office of the Special Counsel. “Second Interim Investigative Report On the Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System.” March 1, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf ^
  91. Parker Thayer and Hayden Ludwig. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  92. Office of the Special Counsel. “Second Interim Investigative Report On the Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System.” March 1, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf ^
  93. Office of the Special Counsel. “Second Interim Investigative Report On the Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System.” March 1, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf ^
  94. Office of the Special Counsel. “Second Interim Investigative Report On the Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System.” March 1, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf ^
  95. Office of the Special Counsel. “Second Interim Investigative Report On the Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System.” March 1, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf ^
  96. Wisconsin Assembly Bill 173 (2021-2022). Wisconsin Legislature. Passed May 11, 2021. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab173.

    Governor’s Veto, June 30, 2021: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/veto_messages/ab173.pdf ^

  97. Nick Viviani. “Breaking down the ‘Zuckerberg 5′ in Wisconsin election report; CTCL derides allegations.” WMTV NBC (Madison, WI). March 2, 2022. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://www.nbc15.com/2022/03/02/breaking-down-zuckerberg-5-wisconsin-election-report-ctcl-derides-allegations/ ^
  98. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  99. Hayden Ludwig. “How Mark Zuckerberg Meddled in Virginia’s 2020 Election—UPDATED.” Capital Research Center. March 9, 2021. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-mark-zuckerberg-meddled-in-virginias-2020-election/ ^
  100. Multiple grants discovered via FOIA request. Credit to Ned Jones of the Virginia Project. https://virginiaproject.com/. Archived here by county:

    ^

  101. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  102. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  103. Virginia 2020 Election Results. Politico. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/virginia/ ^
  104. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  105. Virginia 2020 Election Results. Politico. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/virginia/ ^
  106. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  107. Virginia 2020 Election Results. Politico. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/virginia/ ^
  108. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  109. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  110. “CTCL COVID-19 Response Grant Report.” Fairfax County, VA. Obtained via FOIA request; credit to Clayton Percle of the Virginia Liberty Project. Accessed May 13, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/05/CTCL-FOIA-Report-Fairfax-County-Virginia.pdf ^
  111. Loudoun County, Virginia, Grant Application to CTCL. Sept. 29, 2020. Accessed August 25, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/08/1_CTCL_Grant_Application_Loudoun.pdf ^
  112. Loudoun County, Virginia, CTCL Grant Spending Report. Jan. 6, 2021. Accessed August 25, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/08/7_CTCL_Grant_Report_-_Loudoun_County_VA_.pdf ^
  113. Loudoun County, Virginia, Grant Application to CTCL. Sept. 29, 2020. Accessed August 25, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/08/1_CTCL_Grant_Application_Loudoun.pdf ^
  114. Loudoun County, Virginia, CTCL Grant Spending Report. Jan. 6, 2021. Accessed August 25, 2021. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/08/7_CTCL_Grant_Report_-_Loudoun_County_VA_.pdf ^
  115. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  116. Scott Walter. “Zuckerberg’s Return on Investment in Pennsylvania—UPDATED.” Capital Research Center. May 20, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/zuckerbergs-return-on-investment-in-pennsylvania/ ^
  117. “2016 Pennsylvania Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2020. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/pennsylvania/ ^
  118. “2020 Pennsylvania Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2020. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/ ^
  119. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  120. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  121. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  122. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  123. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  124. Hayden Ludwig. “How Mark Zuckerberg Almost Handed Texas To The Democrats.” Capital Research Center. May 7, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-mark-zuckerberg-almost-handed-texas-to-the-democrats-2/ ^
  125. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  126. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  127. Hayden Ludwig. “How Mark Zuckerberg Almost Handed Texas To The Democrats.” Capital Research Center. May 7, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-mark-zuckerberg-almost-handed-texas-to-the-democrats-2/ ^
  128. “2016 Texas Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/texas/ ^
  129. “2020 Texas Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/texas/ ^
  130. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  131. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  132. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  133. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  134. “2020 Texas Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/texas/ ^
  135. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  136. Hayden Ludwig. “Tracing Mark Zuckerberg’s Election Investment in North Carolina—UPDATED.” Capital Research Center. May 4, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/tracing-mark-zuckerbergs-election-investment-in-north-carolina/ ^
  137. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  138. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  139. ” 2016 North Carolina Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/north-carolina/ ^
  140. “2020 North Carolina Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/north-carolina/ ^
  141. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  142. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  143. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  144. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  145. Hayden Ludwig. “CTCL’s “Zuck Bucks” Invade Michigan and Wisconsin.” Capital Research Center. February 3, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/ctcls-zuck-bucks-invade-michigan-and-wisconsin/ ^
  146. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  147. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  148. Chris Wickert and Mitchell Schmidt. “Tech-backed group spread money around Wisconsin in 2020 election, but Democratic areas benefited most.” Wisconsin State Journal. Oct. 25, 2021. Accessed Oct. 25, 2021. https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/tech-backed-group-spread-money-around-wisconsin-in-2020-election-but-democratic-areas-benefited-most/article_4389494c-5dbe-5289-92f5-ed3780664716.html ^
  149. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  150. Hayden Ludwig. “CTCL’s “Zuck Bucks” Invade Michigan and Wisconsin.” Capital Research Center. February 3, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/ctcls-zuck-bucks-invade-michigan-and-wisconsin/ ^
  151. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  152. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  153. Scott Walter. “What Is Mark Zuckerberg’s Election Money Doing in Georgia?” Capital Research Center. December 10, 2020. https://capitalresearch.org/article/what-is-mark-zuckerbergs-election-money-doing-in-georgia/ ^
  154. Scott Walter. “Georgia Election Officials, a Billionaire, and the “Nonpartisan” Center for Tech & Civic Life.” Capital Research Center. November 27, 2020. https://capitalresearch.org/article/center-for-tech-civic-life/ ^
  155. Hayden Dublois, Tyler Lamensky. “How Zuckerbucks Influenced the Georgia Elections.” Foundation for Government Accountability. May 24, 2021. https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/How-Zuckerbucks-Influenced-the-Georgia-Elections.pdf ^
  156. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  157. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  158. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  159. “2016 Georgia Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/georgia/ ^
  160. “2020 Georgia Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/georgia/ ^
  161. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  162. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  163. Hayden Ludwig. “How CTCL Helped Biden in Arizona and Nevada.” Capital Research Center. January 22, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-ctcl-helped-biden-in-arizona-and-nevada/ ^
  164. Arizona 2020 Election Results. Politico. Accessed Feb. 24, 2022. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/arizona/ ^
  165. Arizona 2016 Election Results. Politico. Accessed Feb. 24, 2022. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/arizona/ ^
  166. Arizona 2020 Election Results. Politico. Accessed Feb. 24, 2022. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/arizona/ ^
  167. Arizona 2016 Election Results. Politico. Accessed Feb. 24, 2022. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/arizona/ ^
  168. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  169. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  170. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  171. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  172. Hayden Ludwig. “How CTCL Helped Biden in Arizona and Nevada.” Capital Research Center. January 22, 2021. https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-ctcl-helped-biden-in-arizona-and-nevada/ ^
  173. Note: For a complete list of grants discovered in Nevada, see this data (current as of January 2021): https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/CTCL-Grants-2020-AZ-NV_fixed.xlsx ^
  174. “2016 Nevada Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/nevada/ ^
  175. “2020 Nevada Presidential Election Results.” Politico. Accessed June 10, 2021. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/nevada/ ^
  176. Hayden Ludwig, Parker Thayer. “UPDATED: Shining a Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States.” Capital Research Center. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Feb. 23, 2022. https://capitalresearch.org/article/shining-a-light-on-zuck-bucks-in-key-states/ ^
  177. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Center for Tech and Civic Life. 2015-2020. Part I. Lines 8, 12, 13, 20. ^
  178. Kerry A. Dolan. “Here Are 17 Billionaires Who’ve Donated To The Silicon Valley Community Foundation.” Forbes. May 2, 2018. Accessed Dec. 16, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2018/05/02/here-are-16-billionaires-whove-donated-to-the-silicon-valley-community-foundation/?sh=6b3b8cb31bfb ^
  179. Kathleen Chaykowski. “Zuckerberg Donates $200 Million To Silicon Valley Community Foundation As It Hires New CEO.” Forbes. Nov. 10, 2018. Accessed Dec. 16, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2018/11/10/zuckerberg-donates-214-million-to-silicon-valley-community-foundation-as-it-hires-new-ceo/?sh=794b8f48550d ^
  180. Allen, Mike. “Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Invest $300 Million in Election Infrastructure,” September 1, 2020. https://www.axios.com/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-election-security-a4950a93-2efd-42a6-9d7a-5fcc763f9214.html. ^
  181. CTCLAdmin. “CTCL Receives $250M Contribution to Support Critical Work of Election Officials.” Center for Tech and Civic Life, September 1, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/open-call/. ^
  182. Culliford, Elizabeth. “Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan Donate $100 Million More to U.S. Election Infrastructure,” October 13, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-zuckerberg-chan/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-donate-100-million-more-to-u-s-election-infrastructure-idUSKBN26Y22Z. ^
  183. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). Silicon Valley Community Foundation. 2020. Schedule I. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/12/Silicon-Valley-Community-Foundation-2020-Form-990.pdf ^
  184. “Grants.” Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. Accessed Dec. 16, 2021. https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/ ^
  185. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990). New Venture Fund. 2020. Schedule I. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2021/11/new-venture-fund-2020-form-990.pdf ^
  186. Grego, Suzana. “Skoll Foundation Announces 2020 Awards for Social Entrepreneurship.” Skoll Foundation. April 15, 2020. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://skoll.org/2020/04/15/skoll-foundation-announces-2020-awards-for-social-entrepreneurship-clone/ ^
  187. Data compiled by FoundationSearch.com subscription service, a project of Metasoft Systems, Inc., from forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Queries conducted August 21, 2020. ^
  188. New Venture Fund (NVF). 2020 Grants. Accessed November 22, 2021. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/new-venture-fund/. ^
  189. “Key Funders and Partners.” Center for Tech and Civic Life. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/key-funders-and-partners/ ^
  190. “Tiana Epps-Johnson.” The Center for Tech and Civil Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/team/tiana-epps-johnson/. ^
  191. “Whitney May.” The Center for Tech and Civil Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/team/whitney-may/. ^
  192. “Donny Bridges.” The Center for Tech and Civil Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/team/donny-bridges/. ^
  193. “Board of Directors.” Center for Tech and Civic Life. Accessed August 21, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/board-of-directors/. ^
  194. “Advisory Committee.” Center for Tech and Civic Life. Accessed December 7, 2020. https://www.techandciviclife.org/advisory-committee/ ^
  195. Grant Letter from CTCL to Alachua County, FL. September 21, 2020. Accessed Dec. 7, 2020. Original URL: https://alachua.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4663759&GUID=F2980723-483C-4729-A2DB-34C2014C0483. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Alachua-County-Florida-Agreement.-12.20.pdf ^
  196. “Dallas County Elections Department Receives Over $15 Million Grant from Center for Tech and Civic Life for COVID-19 Response and Preparedness.” Press Release: Dallas County. September 25, 2020. Accessed Dec. 7, 2020. Original URL: https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/uploads/docs/covid-19/press-releases/september/092520-PressRelease-DallasCountyElectionsDepartmentReceivesOver$15MillionGrantfromCenterforTechandCivicLifeforCOVID-19ResponseandPreparedness.pdf. Archived: https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/12/CTCL-Dallas-County-Texas-Grant.pdf ^
  197. Minneapolis: Center for Tech and Civic Life Grant. September 30, 2020. Accessed Dec. 7, 2020. https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/RCA/6813 ^

Directors, Employees & Supporters

  1. Donny Bridges
    Co-Founder
  2. Whitney May
    Co-Founder

Supported Movements

  1. Vote Early Day
  See an error? Let us know!

Nonprofit Information

  • Accounting Period: January - December
  • Tax Exemption Received: March 1, 2015

  • Available Filings

    Period Form Type Total revenue Total functional expenses Total assets (EOY) Total liabilities (EOY) Unrelated business income? Total contributions Program service revenue Investment income Comp. of current officers, directors, etc. Form 990
    2020 Jan Form 990 $3,404,409 $1,376,946 $3,172,982 $116,649 N $2,842,705 $560,042 $19 $112,707 PDF
    2019 Jan Form 990 $1,414,981 $1,119,630 $1,163,841 $134,971 N $560,319 $854,088 $19 $102,513 PDF
    2018 Jan Form 990 $1,044,134 $841,577 $795,279 $61,760 N $738,060 $304,459 $19 $97,850
    2017 Jan Form 990 $970,937 $1,002,928 $564,557 $84,595 N $272,161 $698,757 $19 $94,004
    2016 Jan Form 990 $1,013,853 $501,900 $552,398 $40,445 N $666,904 $346,942 $7 $83,759 PDF

    Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL)

    233 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1800
    CHICAGO, IL 60601-5802